Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Glosemeyer v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided January 14, 2000No. 93-126L, 93-134L, 98-176LPublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

The plaintiffs in these cases are Missouri landowners who claim to own the fee interests in lands underlying two railroad lines. Their Fifth Amendment takings claims have been consolidated for the purpose of resolving common issues of federal and Missouri law. The primary question presented is one of state law — whether “railbanking,” the preservation of otherwise abandoned railroad easements for possible future railroad activity by interposition of interim trail use, constitutes a railroad purpose under Missouri law. Railbanking was imposed by Congress through the…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Armstrong v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Macy Elevator, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  2. Caldwell v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  3. Moore v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  4. Raulerson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  5. Jenkins v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011

34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API